Re: intermittent fasting was: calories in/out

June 21, 2008

My last fast, during Lent, I went from 171 to 156. I'm still at

156. I lost most of the weight the first two weeks. So I'd say that

fasting is a good way to lose weight fast. I also appreciate the

mental clarity I get from fasting and emotional stability. Fasting

really feels good. And I second that I'm not as hungry anymore;

perhaps that's how I'm keeping the weight off.

>

> ,

>

> > , my goal is to lose about 20 pounds and I don't care if it

> > takes a year or two. However, if there's a way to do it faster

> > without leaving myself hungry, I might try it.

>

> I have no doubt you can do it since you have already demonstrated

that

> by losing a lot of weight already, but in the context of your

original

> statement it appeared you were talking about folks in general. I

think

> for most people such a long time frame would be difficult to

maintain.

>

> Here is a guy who transformed his body with weightlifting and

> intermittent fasting in a relatively short period of time. I have no

> desire to be that lean but it shows what one can do.

>

> http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=6324201

>

> >> Which is one of the advantages of intermittent fasting, you can

> >> create a caloric deficit without having to deal with hunger

pains as

> >> a constant challenge. And I'm not talking about a daily caloric

> >> deficit but rather one that is measured week by week.

> >

> > I recently heard about fast-5, where you eat all you want within a

> > 5-hour period and then fast the remaining 19 hours per day. For

me,

> > that would mean basically cutting out one meal a day - most likely

> > dinner, which is often my smallest meal anyway.

>

> Yes quite similar to the Warrior Diet, which was a very long and

> diverse thread on this list (Fast-5 has been mentioned on occasion

as

> well). The main difference is that the author does advocate

> consciously counting calories and watching fat, unlike the author of

> the WD.

>

> On the other hand, one thing I have noticed over time is that

regular

> fasting causes me to eat less. On the WD board, a lot of women seem

to

> have a hard time getting all the calories in that Ori (the author)

> suggests. In retrospect that is probably why they are having good

> success with the WD approach, although they get hungrier during the

> following day.

>

> My main problem with the WD/Fast 5 is that it basically ends my

> evening. I eat and drink and feel like a beached whale for the rest

of

> the night. If the only thing that concerned me was calories, in

which

> case I could eat some calorically dense " dirty " foods (i.e junk

foods)

> and not feel so stuffed, it might work for me, but I'm not willing

to

> do that.

>

> > Last Thursday, I was off from work and went to an all-you-can-eat

> > buffet for lunch with family. I ate no food before lunch and did

my

> > walk and jog in the morning, which helped to curb my appetite. I

was

> > hungry for about an hour before we went to eat. I stuffed myself

at

> > the buffet, probably eating around 1,500 to 2,000 calories, or

> > possibly more. I didn't get hungry at all until bed time and ate

> > nothing else that day - although I did have a couple of beers that

> > evening - for dessert I guess

> >

> > I could probably do that every day, but two normal meals and

cutting

> > out a third would probably be easier and more likely to produce a

> > calorie deficit.

>

> I follow the Eat Stop Eat intermittent fasting approach, where you

> fast 1x or 2x a week for 24 hours, and eat normally the rest of the

> week. The weight loss phase is 2x a week and the maintenance phase

is

> 1x a week.

>

> You can use it with a particular diet approach or no real approach

at

> all. It fits very easily with my lifestyle, since in my spiritual

> tradition I do a type of fast 2 days a week anyway. However, I

really

> do like the 16/8 hour feast/fast approach, and after doing some

> research, I realize I could follow it without it affecting my

> spiritual fasts.

>

> Having an eating window of say 1:00 pm to 9:00 pm would be a breeze

> for me, since I don't eat breakfast (the thought of waking up to a

> meal in the morning gags me and has for many years) and usually I am

> not hungry until early afternoon anyway, and even that is variable.

>

> Plus I love the extra mental clarity, insight and overall

productivity

> I get every time I fast, and it would be a boon to experience such

> elevated production for a few hours each day.

>

> Also the 16/8 plan is much more geared towards athletes and those

who

> are doing intense workouts, and allows for bulking, cutting, and

lean

> mass gains. The author of this approach is very detailed and precise

> but I have no intention of following it that way, rather being more

> freewheeling like the EAT STOP EAT way. There are a number of people

> who seem to be getting good results while just maintaining the 8

hour

> window.

>

> The only potential problem I see is changing my workout time. I like

> to workout in the morning and on the 16/8 approach you are supposed

to

> eat the bulk of your calories post workout. Sounds like it would

work

> for you since your smallest meal is at night but it would require a

> serious revamping of my schedule for me to do it like that.

>

> --

> " How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

> gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and

within

> her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

> own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

>

> St. Chrysostom

>

June 22, 2008

,

> Plus I love the extra mental clarity, insight and overall productivity

> I get every time I fast, and it would be a boon to experience such

> elevated production for a few hours each day.

I never get this. When I fast, I feel very peaceful, but definitely

not up to doing hardcore thinking type of work. There are exceptions

-- usually at a certain point in the afternoon or so things might kick

in for a while, but as a general rule, I don't seem to reap this

chatecholamine benefit like many others. I wonder whence the

difference.

Chris

June 22, 2008

It might help if you shared what type of fast you do - water, raw milk,

juicing, etc.

I find even eating lightly, so I'm " hungry " helps clear my head and

makes me more productive.

>

> ,

>

> > Plus I love the extra mental clarity, insight and overall

productivity

> > I get every time I fast, and it would be a boon to experience such

> > elevated production for a few hours each day.

>

> I never get this. When I fast, I feel very peaceful, but definitely

> not up to doing hardcore thinking type of work. There are exceptions

> -- usually at a certain point in the afternoon or so things might kick

> in for a while, but as a general rule, I don't seem to reap this

> chatecholamine benefit like many others. I wonder whence the

> difference.

>

> Chris

>

June 22, 2008

Hi,

As an experienced all water faster, of up to twenty days or longer according to

the principles of natural hygiene, I would have to agree with M. Fasting

equates resting otherwise it is not a fast.

Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

From: Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

Subject: Re: Re: intermittent fasting was: calories in/out

Date: Sunday, June 22, 2008, 4:51 AM

,

> Plus I love the extra mental clarity, insight and overall productivity

> I get every time I fast, and it would be a boon to experience such

> elevated production for a few hours each day.

I never get this. When I fast, I feel very peaceful, but definitely

not up to doing hardcore thinking type of work. There are exceptions

-- usually at a certain point in the afternoon or so things might kick

in for a while, but as a general rule, I don't seem to reap this

chatecholamine benefit like many others. I wonder whence the

difference.

Chris

June 22, 2008

On 6/22/08, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> It might help if you shared what type of fast you do - water, raw milk,

> juicing, etc.

>

> I find even eating lightly, so I'm " hungry " helps clear my head and

> makes me more productive.

Lemon water or kefired coconut water. I'm not sure which is better in

this respect, I'll have to pay more attention.

Chris

June 22, 2008

Jim,

> As an experienced all water faster, of up to twenty days or longer according

> to the principles of natural hygiene, I would have to agree with M.

> Fasting equates resting otherwise it is not a fast.

Actually I just meant for a day. For an extended fast, I reach a

certain point of adaptation where I become very energetic.

Also, I feel MUCH better on a one-day fast when I do intense exercise.

I have no problem doing interval training and burning 800 calories in

40 minutes or so, and I feel very sharp for a couple hours afterward.

However, eventually I slip back unless I either exercise again or have

a little coffee.

Chris

June 22, 2008

If it's just for a day, then that explains it! It takes me three

days to really start benefitting from the fast.

That also makes sense about the exercising - the liver is supposed to

be able to store about a day's worth of calories. I bet the second

day you wouldn't feel like exercising so hard!

>

> Jim,

>

> > As an experienced all water faster, of up to twenty days or

longer according

> > to the principles of natural hygiene, I would have to agree with

M.

> > Fasting equates resting otherwise it is not a fast.

>

> Actually I just meant for a day. For an extended fast, I reach a

> certain point of adaptation where I become very energetic.

>

> Also, I feel MUCH better on a one-day fast when I do intense

exercise.

> I have no problem doing interval training and burning 800 calories

in

> 40 minutes or so, and I feel very sharp for a couple hours

afterward.

> However, eventually I slip back unless I either exercise again or

have

> a little coffee.

>

> Chris

>

June 23, 2008

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

>> Plus I love the extra mental clarity, insight and overall productivity

>> I get every time I fast, and it would be a boon to experience such

>> elevated production for a few hours each day.

>

> I never get this. When I fast, I feel very peaceful, but definitely

> not up to doing hardcore thinking type of work. There are exceptions

> -- usually at a certain point in the afternoon or so things might kick

> in for a while, but as a general rule, I don't seem to reap this

> chatecholamine benefit like many others. I wonder whence the

> difference.

To be honest I have only noticed this recently on the one day fasts as

I got more serious about making sure I spend at least 24 hours of

lemon water or such on Wednesdays and Fridays. Now I notice it almost

immediately whenever I fast for whatever length of time beyond say 12

hours.

Are you hungry on the one day fasts? Maybe it is something that is

adaptive in nature, i.e. you will notice it more and more if

consistently done over a period of time.

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

June 23, 2008

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 5:13 PM, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> My last fast, during Lent, I went from 171 to 156. I'm still at

> 156. I lost most of the weight the first two weeks. So I'd say that

> fasting is a good way to lose weight fast. I also appreciate the

> mental clarity I get from fasting and emotional stability. Fasting

> really feels good. And I second that I'm not as hungry anymore;

> perhaps that's how I'm keeping the weight off.

Well I don't think is going to be doing any long term Lenten fasts :-)

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

June 23, 2008

,

> Are you hungry on the one day fasts? Maybe it is something that is

> adaptive in nature, i.e. you will notice it more and more if

> consistently done over a period of time.

Sometimes, but it is more like that interview said -- short bouts of

hunger that go away. But I generally do not feel like, say, studying

biochemistry while I'm fasting.

Chris

June 23, 2008

,

> Hi,

> As an experienced all water faster, of up to twenty days or longer according

> to the principles of natural hygiene, I would have to agree with M.

> Fasting equates resting otherwise it is not a fast.

AFAIK, the only people who have ever believed that are Natural

Hygienists, taking it to such extremes as advocating complete bed rest

during a fast and only water, and then suggesting as you do above that

anything else is not a fast.

Unless someone buys into the specious notion that no one really fasted

until the founding of the school of Natural Hygiene, and no one has

really fasted since, because the totality of fasting has never

included just water or complete bed rest, I think the more balanced

historical approach was uttered by Christ:

" Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad

countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to

men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.

But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that

you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in

the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you

openly. "

6:16-18

In other words, among other things, go about your daily business while

you fast.

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

June 23, 2008

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Well I don't think is going to be doing any long term Lenten

> fasts :-)

, you're quite right! The longest I've ever fasted when not

sick is about 24 hours and that was when I was in college and just

wanted to see what would happen. I just remember being hungry most of

the time and realizing how much time I spent eating

I do like the 16/8 concept and may try it out if I can figure out

whether dropping breakfast or dinner will be easiest from a hunger

standpoint. I'll have to do some experimenting to find out. I

typically get hungry about one to two hours after I wake up in the

morning - probably from conditioning over the years from eating a big

breakfast most days. That's also when I have most of the carbs I eat

- in the form of raw milk and a bowl of cereal with wheat germ. To me

it makes intuitive sense that carbs eaten early in the day are more

likely to be burned as fuel during the active day, since I'm guessing

a lot more calories are burned during the day than while sleeping. It

also would replenish glycogen stores that may be depleted in the 10 to

12 hours of fasting I currently have between dinner and breakfast most

days. So I'm thinking that dropping dinner would make the most sense

for extending the fast to 16 hours, but I haven't tried it yet.

Since I work 5 days a week, I can't easily push my breakfast to noon

without drastically changing what I eat for breakfast. Most of it is

not convenient to take to work. I could have my breakfast food for

dinner, but having a lot of carbs before going into the least active

part of the day doesn't make sense to me. I'd expect that a lot more

of those carbs will end up as " excess " and get stored as fat, since

I'm not burning as many calories when I'm inactive in the evening and

at night asleep.

And yes, I know others have said it doesn't matter when you eat carbs,

but I remain unconvinced

June 24, 2008

*On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:17 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

*

>

> *

>

> In other words, among other things, go about your daily business while

> you fast.* *

>

> *

> --

>

Dear ,

Had this thread in mind when I ran across an article today that said:

Researchers from Venezuela and the US found that women who had a big

breakfast packed with carbohydrates and protein, and then followed a low

carbohydrate, low calorie diet for the rest of the day, were more successful

at losing weight and keeping the weight off than women on strict low

carbohydrate diets.

The study was presented at The Endocrine Society's 90th Annual Meeting in

San Francisco, yesterday, Tuesday 17th June, by lead author Dr a

Jakubowicz, of the Hospital de Clinicas, Caracas, Venezuela. Plans to

publish the paper in a journal were not announced.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111734.php

That's basically how I've lived for the past 5-6 years - to the point where

it is so successful, DH calls me " bony " . Hmmmm.........anyway, I'd never

quite looked at it as a fast, but is it a type of fast in the way that you

view carbs/fats, etc. - that one can fast within a day rather than days at a

time, or have I totally misunderstood the diet you were addressing?

Thanks for insights and any clarification. Fascinating topic.

Sharon

June 25, 2008

Sharon,

Regarding that study, check out Dr. Eades' post yesterday on the

flaws: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/big-

breakfast-bunkum/

Cheers

Kustes

http://www.modernforager.com

>

> *On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:17 PM, <slethnobotanist@...>

wrote:

> *

> >

> > *

> >

> > In other words, among other things, go about your daily business

while

> > you fast.* *

> >

> > *

> > --

> >

>

> Dear ,

>

> Had this thread in mind when I ran across an article today that

said:

>

> Researchers from Venezuela and the US found that women who had a big

> breakfast packed with carbohydrates and protein, and then followed

a low

> carbohydrate, low calorie diet for the rest of the day, were more

successful

> at losing weight and keeping the weight off than women on strict low

> carbohydrate diets.

>

> The study was presented at The Endocrine Society's 90th Annual

Meeting in

> San Francisco, yesterday, Tuesday 17th June, by lead author Dr

a

> Jakubowicz, of the Hospital de Clinicas, Caracas, Venezuela. Plans

to

> publish the paper in a journal were not announced.

> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111734.php

>

> That's basically how I've lived for the past 5-6 years - to the

point where

> it is so successful, DH calls me " bony " . Hmmmm.........anyway,

I'd never

> quite looked at it as a fast, but is it a type of fast in the way

that you

> view carbs/fats, etc. - that one can fast within a day rather than

days at a

> time, or have I totally misunderstood the diet you were addressing?

>

> Thanks for insights and any clarification. Fascinating topic.

> Sharon

>

June 25, 2008

Excellent! Thanks, !

Sharon

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:59 AM, sk12879 <scott.kustes@...> wrote:

> Sharon,

> Regarding that study, check out Dr. Eades' post yesterday on the

> flaws: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/big-

> breakfast-bunkum/

>

> Cheers

> Kustes

> http://www.modernforager.com

>

June 25, 2008

I certainly envy those that say they get mental clarity when they fast.

I do a 24 hour spiritual fast monthly and I can pretty much count on a

headache, lethargy, body fatigue and brain fog (basically my usual

symptoms intensified). I've fasted up to 2 and a half days before with

no lessening of symptoms or hunger. Maybe I just need to try a 24 hour

fast weekly instead of monthly and my body will get used to it? I'm also

interested in doing a raw milk fast that I've heard talked about here. I

can't find any detailed instructions on the web or in the archives. I

plan on buying The Untold Story of Milk (I've heard it has a chapter on

it. The WAP article on the raw milk cure was very interesting, but

unhelpful as far as what to do exactly). While I'm waiting for the book

to come, could someone possibly share the instructions and/or their

experience doing a raw milk fast? I'm so grateful to have finally found

a source for raw milk (but now slightly dismayed to hear in recent posts

that Jersey cows don't make the best kind of protein (beta 2 casein?)

like Guernsey cows and others :-( ) Oh well, I'll take what I can get

and thank the heavens for it daily.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any tips and instructions on doing a raw milk

fast. Thanks!

Bradley

Mommy of 3,

Cedar Park Milkmaid &

Story Time Felts Consultant

www.wonderfelt.com

June 26, 2008

,

> , you're quite right! The longest I've ever fasted when not

> sick is about 24 hours and that was when I was in college and just

> wanted to see what would happen. I just remember being hungry most of

> the time and realizing how much time I spent eating

Yeah, amazing how much food dominates our lives.

> I do like the 16/8 concept and may try it out if I can figure out

> whether dropping breakfast or dinner will be easiest from a hunger

> standpoint. I'll have to do some experimenting to find out. I

> typically get hungry about one to two hours after I wake up in the

> morning - probably from conditioning over the years from eating a big

> breakfast most days.

When you experiment with skipping breakfast you might want to start by

eating a really big meal the night before.

> That's also when I have most of the carbs I eat

> - in the form of raw milk and a bowl of cereal with wheat germ.

People still eat bowls of cereal? And wheat germ? <g>

> To me

> it makes intuitive sense that carbs eaten early in the day are more

> likely to be burned as fuel during the active day, since I'm guessing

> a lot more calories are burned during the day than while sleeping. It

> also would replenish glycogen stores that may be depleted in the 10 to

> 12 hours of fasting I currently have between dinner and breakfast most

> days. So I'm thinking that dropping dinner would make the most sense

> for extending the fast to 16 hours, but I haven't tried it yet.

Juts because it might seem counter-intuitive to you, doesn't mean its

wrong <weg>

> Since I work 5 days a week, I can't easily push my breakfast to noon

> without drastically changing what I eat for breakfast. Most of it is

> not convenient to take to work. I could have my breakfast food for

> dinner, but having a lot of carbs before going into the least active

> part of the day doesn't make sense to me. I'd expect that a lot more

> of those carbs will end up as " excess " and get stored as fat, since

> I'm not burning as many calories when I'm inactive in the evening and

> at night asleep.

Seems intuitive to me that as long as the proper amount of calories

are expended each day/week, it shouldn't make any difference <bweg>

> And yes, I know others have said it doesn't matter when you eat carbs,

> but I remain unconvinced

I don't know, seems intuitive to me :-)

By the way, do you do any kind of weight bearing exercise, or does

working out for you consist largely of walking? Without exception, all

the IF programs include regular workouts, the 16/8 program

(leangainers) even more so, since it is designed specifically for

athletes or those involved in intense physical exercise. That isn't to

say it can't be modified (as I read about the other night) but that

was its original intent.

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

June 26, 2008

Hi Sharon,

> The study was presented at The Endocrine Society's 90th Annual Meeting in

> San Francisco, yesterday, Tuesday 17th June, by lead author Dr a

> Jakubowicz, of the Hospital de Clinicas, Caracas, Venezuela. Plans to

> publish the paper in a journal were not announced.

> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111734.php

Well the other night at about 2:00 am I was all ready to wax eloquent

about the numerous problems with the above study, when I started to

read Eades blog and lo and behold there was a critique of said

study. And then I wake up and find out that the link to Eades review

had already been posted! Oh well, lol.

> That's basically how I've lived for the past 5-6 years - to the point where

> it is so successful, DH calls me " bony " . Hmmmm.........anyway, I'd never

> quite looked at it as a fast, but is it a type of fast in the way that you

> view carbs/fats, etc. - that one can fast within a day rather than days at a

> time, or have I totally misunderstood the diet you were addressing?

No you have understood. Everyone fasts. From dinner to the first meal

of the next day is breaking the fast, i.e breakfast. The condensed

window type of fast simply extends the overnight fast well into the

waking hours - 8 to 12 to 16 hours depending on what plan of IF you

are following.

So yes you can fast within a day, and doesn't really matter how you

view carbs/fats, etc. Most IF assumes you will not eating anything

during the fasting hours, but only drinking no calorie or very low

calorie liquids. A notable exception would be the Warrior Diet, which

allows for certain types of food during the " fasting " phase.

In terms of actual diet, you will find IF'ers all over the place -

high carb, low carb, clean with junk, eat what you want within reason,

etc. Doesn't seem to make much of a difference in terms of weight loss

and other health markers.

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

June 26, 2008

On 6/26/08, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

>> And yes, I know others have said it doesn't matter when you eat carbs,

>> but I remain unconvinced

>

> I don't know, seems intuitive to me :-)

Colpo has a whole chapter on this with studies that address the

question. That said, I never really understood he logic of the

eat-carbs-in-the-morning-only school of thought. Why on earth would

it somehow be disadvantageous to store energy in the night and burn it

off in the day compared to burning the same amount of energy but

partly from the food sitting in your intestine from breakfast? If

anything, depleting glycogen during the day should allow more stored

energy to be in the form of glycogen rather than fat once carbohydrate

is repleted, but on the whole, it doesn't seem it should make any

major difference.

Chris

June 27, 2008

Similarly, I don't find a whole lot of validity in the " don't eat

after 8pm " dogma either (or whatever time the speaker picks). The

theory is that metabolism slows at night, but when it comes down to

it, weight is a measure of caloric intake over time, perhaps a 3-4 or

even 7+ day average, not a measure over a single 24-hour period. It

seems to me that varying caloric intake daily is a better way to eat

than eating the same 3, 4, or 5 meals everyday. I had a post of my

caloric/nutrient breakdown from FitDay awhile back. I had days as low

as 1800 calories and days as high as 4400 calories, yet " oddly, " my

weight didn't fluctuate day-to-day. The body is far smarter than most

give it credit for.

But anywho, to stay on topic, I think you're right Chris. I doubt

most of us in sedentary desk jobs are burning off much of our muscle

glycogen throughout the day, but we certainly go through our liver

glycogen. I think I can tell when my body makes the major switch from

glycogen burning to fat burning (yes, both are happening all the time,

but I'm speaking of predominance). Usually around 10 or so, I hit a

sleepy period for about 15 minutes...yawning, the whole nine yards.

Then I come through and have abundant energy and clarity. Of course,

I could be full of bunkum (that did happen at least once in my life)

and be coming up with a theory to fit something that isn't true, but

on the face, it makes sense to me.

IF is really interesting stuff to play with.

Cheers

Kustes

http://www.modernforager.com

>

> >> And yes, I know others have said it doesn't matter when you eat

carbs,

> >> but I remain unconvinced

> >

> > I don't know, seems intuitive to me :-)

>

> Colpo has a whole chapter on this with studies that address the

> question. That said, I never really understood he logic of the

> eat-carbs-in-the-morning-only school of thought. Why on earth would

> it somehow be disadvantageous to store energy in the night and burn it

> off in the day compared to burning the same amount of energy but

> partly from the food sitting in your intestine from breakfast? If

> anything, depleting glycogen during the day should allow more stored

> energy to be in the form of glycogen rather than fat once carbohydrate

> is repleted, but on the whole, it doesn't seem it should make any

> major difference.

>

> Chris

>

June 27, 2008

,

I enjoyed browsing your web site. Running is so fundamental to indigenous

cultures, as well as fasting. Just an FYI, the late Dr. Herbert M. Shelton was a

proponet of not eating after dark but I noticed in his volumes of writtings on

natural hygiene that Shelton made references to the effect that if you had not

eaten sufficiently durring the day, it would be perfectly acceptable to eat @

nite. What is emphasized is the bad habit of snacking @ nite & raiding the

fridge @ nite. The theory is that every nite the body is fasting or resting for

say 6 to 12 hours until it is time to break the fast when we arise each morning

& that is why it is called break-fast.

I too have used fit day to keep track of nutrients, calories burned, etc. Like

measuring anything it can provide a yardstick idea of what our routines are @

any given time.

Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

From: sk12879 <scott.kustes@...>

Subject: Re: intermittent fasting was: calories in/out

Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 5:12 AM